The patriarchate of Antioch is claimed by at least five major Eastern Christian churches, three of which- the Melkite, Syriac, and Maronite Catholic churches- are in communion with the Catholic Church and thus recognize each other's claims. The Antiochian Orthodox Church belongs to the Eastern Orthodox Church and the Syriac Orthodox Church is a member of the Oriental Orthodox Communion.

The five branches are:

the Antiochian Orthodox Church the Syriac Orthodox Church the Melkite Greek Catholic Church the Syriac Catholic Church the Maronite Church

The Roman Catholic Church also claimed the patriarchate and appointed titular Latin rite patriarchs for many centuries until it renounced those claims in 1964.

'Evil isn't the real threat to the world. Stupid is just as destructive as evil, maybe more so, and it's a hell of a lot more common. What we really need is a crusade against stupid. That might actually make a difference.'~Harry Dresden

Why do some people still say the Church of Antioch is in communion with Constantinople

Because it is.

Quote

when in fact it is in communion with Rome?

Because it's not.

FYI In 1724, Cyril VI was elected Patriarch of Antioch and he along with the majority of bishops decided to come into communion with Rome thus founding the Melkite Catholic Church. Cyril then went on to Constantinople to tell Jeramias III , patriarch of Constantinople, about this. Jeramias rejected this and set up a rival bishop thus founding the Antiochan orthodox church of today.

In reality the Church of Antioch IS the Melkite Greek Catholic Church.The Antiochan orthodox church is much like the orthodox church in Rome. Its just a group of faithful but not the official church of the city which in this is example is the Catholic Church of Rome, not its orthodox counterpart

Logged

I do not post here anymore until the end of the year. God bless.

During the Iconoclastic Crisis, Stephen the Faster challenged the assembled Bishops at Hiereia:

"How can you call a council ecumenical when the bishop of Rome has not given his consent, and the canons forbid ecclesiastical affairs to be decided without the pope of Rome?"-Stephen the Faster

FYI In 1724, Cyril VI was elected Patriarch of Antioch and he along with the majority of bishops decided to come into communion with Rome thus founding the Melkite Catholic Church. Cyril then went on to Constantinople to tell Jeramias III , patriarch of Constantinople, about this. Jeramias rejected this and set up a rival bishop thus founding the Antiochan orthodox church of today.

That just makes Cyril and his followers schismatics. Since a new Antiochian Patriarch was established, the lineage continued normally.

In case you didn't read the wiki, there's way more than one church of Antioch.

Logged

'Evil isn't the real threat to the world. Stupid is just as destructive as evil, maybe more so, and it's a hell of a lot more common. What we really need is a crusade against stupid. That might actually make a difference.'~Harry Dresden

The patriarchate of Antioch is claimed by at least five major Eastern Christian churches, three of which- the Melkite, Syriac, and Maronite Catholic churches- are in communion with the Catholic Church and thus recognize each other's claims. The Antiochian Orthodox Church belongs to the Eastern Orthodox Church and the Syriac Orthodox Church is a member of the Oriental Orthodox Communion.

The five branches are:

the Antiochian Orthodox Church the Syriac Orthodox Church the Melkite Greek Catholic Church the Syriac Catholic Church the Maronite Church

The Roman Catholic Church also claimed the patriarchate and appointed titular Latin rite patriarchs for many centuries until it renounced those claims in 1964.

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

Why do some people still say the Church of Antioch is in communion with Constantinople

Because it is.

Quote

when in fact it is in communion with Rome?

Because it's not.

FYI In 1724, Cyril VI was elected Patriarch of Antioch and he along with the majority of bishops decided to come into communion with Rome thus founding the Melkite Catholic Church. Cyril then went on to Constantinople to tell Jeramias III , patriarch of Constantinople, about this. Jeramias rejected this and set up a rival bishop thus founding the Antiochan orthodox church of today.

Before going into the minutiae, two pertinent facts dispose of your misinformation 1) Cyril "VI" was never canonically elected and enthroned 2) even Old Rome rejected him in 1724. "Pat." Cyril never went near Constantinople, as he would have been arrested on the spot.

Sylvester was the choice of the previous patriarch of Antioch and the Holy Synod, assembled in Aleppo, the residence of the patriarch at the time. Word was sent to Constantinople to fetch him and release him back to Antioch-he was a monk at the time on Mt. Athos.

The Antiochan orthodox church is much like the orthodox church in Rome. Its just a group of faithful but not the official church of the city which in this is example is the Catholic Church of Rome, not its orthodox counterpart

This is the canonical bishop of Rome.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

At any rate, when the Orthodox Patriarch Anthanasios III (Debbas) died in 1723, Seraphim Tanas was duly elected Patriarch according to custom by the clergy and laity of Damascus and consecrated with the name Cyril VI. He sent his profession of faith to the Pope and considered himself a Catholic but not a Latin. Thus began the Catholic line of Byzantine Patriarchs of Antioch.His consecration and enthronement came as a serious shock to the rest of Orthodoxy. Rightfully so, (from the Orthodox perspective) Patriarch Jeremias of Constantinople excommunicated Cyril and his consecrators, and ordained Deacon Sylvestor of Cyprus -- a nephew of the deceased Patriarch -- and dispatched him to Damascus, armed with the necessary "firmans, and charged him with the mission of reclaiming the errant and punishing the new "schismatic's."

He was elected by the Synod AND the laity. The Patriarch of Constantinople unilaterally excommunicated the duly elected Patriarch and established a new Patriarch in his stead, and sent him to "reclaim and punish" the new "schismatics". The people and clergy spoke, and elected Cyril, but Constantinople didn't like it and intervened, excommunicating the rightful Patriarch and establishing a seperate line in Damascus.

Regardless of whether or not the time was right for Reunion, Constantinople acted on its own against the rightful Patriarch of Antioch, according to the Canons of the Church. The Melkite Synod and laity elected Patriarch Cyril, and Cyril never moved against Constantinople, but merely reunited with Rome. This action was met with excommunication and the creation of a new Patriarchate, against the Canons of the Church.

Oh and btw, the canonical Bishop of Rome looks more like Pope Francis

« Last Edit: June 22, 2013, 11:27:00 AM by Wandile »

Logged

I do not post here anymore until the end of the year. God bless.

During the Iconoclastic Crisis, Stephen the Faster challenged the assembled Bishops at Hiereia:

"How can you call a council ecumenical when the bishop of Rome has not given his consent, and the canons forbid ecclesiastical affairs to be decided without the pope of Rome?"-Stephen the Faster

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? Who can watch the watchmen?"No one is paying attention to your post reports"Why do posters that claim to have me blocked keep sending me pms and responding to my posts? That makes no sense.

The very act of seeking communion with heretics invalidated his claim to his see. How after all, could one mere patriarch overturn the decisions of his own predecessors (among whom was Patriarch Dorotheus of Antioch who in 1443, rejected the "lawless council of Florence" in conjunction with the patriarchs of Alexandria and Jerusalem), of his own holy synod, and of numerous pan-Orthodox synods which came before him? Canonical legitimacy isn't some sort of magic than can never be lost.

Logged

Be comforted, and have faith, O Israel, for your God is infinitely simple and one, composed of no parts.

There are various Churches of Antioch. There is the Antiochian Orthodox Church that belongs to the Eastern Orthodox communion, the Syriac Orthodox Church that belongs to the Oriental Orthodox communion, the Maronite Church that is based on the community founded by the 4th century Syriac Aramean monk Maroun who is considered a saint, having its first Maronite Patriarch in the 7th century in the person of St John Maron, in communion with Rome(Eastern Catholic) , the Syriac Catholic Church that split from the Syriac Orthodox Church in the 1782 , in communion with Rome, and the Melkite Greek Catholic Church which was split from the Greek Orthodox Church of Antioch in 1729 and joined communion with Rome. So which one of this particular Churches were you refering in the OP?

There are various Churches of Antioch. There is the Antiochian Orthodox Church that belongs to the Eastern Orthodox communion, the Syriac Orthodox Church that belongs to the Oriental Orthodox communion, the Maronite Church that is based on the community founded by the 4th century Syriac Aramean monk Maroun who is considered a saint, having its first Maronite Patriarch in the 7th century in the person of St John Maron, in communion with Rome(Eastern Catholic) , the Syriac Catholic Church that split from the Syriac Orthodox Church in the 1782 , in communion with Rome, and the Melkite Greek Catholic Church which was split from the Greek Orthodox Church of Antioch in 1729 and joined communion with Rome. So which one of this particular Churches were you refering in the OP?

Yes I'm aware of the other claimants... I was referring to the Melkites

Logged

I do not post here anymore until the end of the year. God bless.

During the Iconoclastic Crisis, Stephen the Faster challenged the assembled Bishops at Hiereia:

"How can you call a council ecumenical when the bishop of Rome has not given his consent, and the canons forbid ecclesiastical affairs to be decided without the pope of Rome?"-Stephen the Faster

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? Who can watch the watchmen?"No one is paying attention to your post reports"Why do posters that claim to have me blocked keep sending me pms and responding to my posts? That makes no sense.

Why do some people still say the Church of Antioch is in communion with Constantinople

Because it is.

Quote

when in fact it is in communion with Rome?

Because it's not.

FYI In 1724, Cyril VI was elected Patriarch of Antioch and he along with the majority of bishops decided to come into communion with Rome thus founding the Melkite Catholic Church. Cyril then went on to Constantinople to tell Jeramias III , patriarch of Constantinople, about this. Jeramias rejected this and set up a rival bishop thus founding the Antiochan orthodox church of today.

In reality the Church of Antioch IS the Melkite Greek Catholic Church.The Antiochan orthodox church is much like the orthodox church in Rome. Its just a group of faithful but not the official church of the city which in this is example is the Catholic Church of Rome, not its orthodox counterpart

Well the problem is obvious, and it should not be too difficult for you to figure out why people say the Church of Antioch is in communion with Constantinople while you and others affirm that it is in communion with Rome - because the term 'Church of Antioch' is not being used to refer to the same in both cases. It's not that confusing.

The reason why I refer to the Melkites is because they are the only Antiochan communion that was in communion with Constantinople. Their patriarch and bishops chose become catholic and thus Antioch is not in communion with Constantinople but with Rome...

« Last Edit: June 22, 2013, 02:08:01 PM by Wandile »

Logged

I do not post here anymore until the end of the year. God bless.

During the Iconoclastic Crisis, Stephen the Faster challenged the assembled Bishops at Hiereia:

"How can you call a council ecumenical when the bishop of Rome has not given his consent, and the canons forbid ecclesiastical affairs to be decided without the pope of Rome?"-Stephen the Faster

In reality the Church of Antioch IS the Melkite Greek Catholic Church.

You say Maronite and Syriac Catholic Churches are not legitimate Churches of Antioch.

Quote

The Antiochan orthodox church is much like the orthodox church in Rome. Its just a group of faithful but not the official church of the city which in this is example is the Catholic Church of Rome, not its orthodox counterpart

I really doubt any of those 5 or so Churches that claim to be Church of Antioch are present in Antakya. BTW the Orthodox Church of Antioch is bigger than the Melkite Church.

BTW2 why do you keep spreading your propaganda since you must have already noticed you won't convince anyone?

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? Who can watch the watchmen?"No one is paying attention to your post reports"Why do posters that claim to have me blocked keep sending me pms and responding to my posts? That makes no sense.

"As a fallout of the Latin occupation of the Levant during the crusades, by the fourteenth century Roman Catholic clergy had engaged the Melkite Orthodox and endeavored to heal the division between the East and West. This was at a time when the Great Schism of 1054 remained largely undefined. By the eighteenth century, many in the Melkite church became identified as pro-Western and who sought reconciliation with Rome. In 1724, Patriarch Athanasius III Dabbas of Antioch died naming as his successor Sylvester, his former deacon. In opposition, the faction favoring union with the Roman Catholic Church elected Seraphim Tanas patriarch of Antioch as Cyril VI. Patr. Jeremias III of Constantinople declared Cyril's election invalid and consecrated Sylvester as Patriarch of Antioch. These events formalized a schism within the Church of Antioch, after which the pro-Rome group became known as the Melkite Greek Catholic Church/Greek-Melkite Catholic Patriarchate of Antioch, adopting the term Melkite to identify themselves, whereas the non-Melkites refer to themselves as the Greek Orthodox Patriarchate of Antioch. "

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? Who can watch the watchmen?"No one is paying attention to your post reports"Why do posters that claim to have me blocked keep sending me pms and responding to my posts? That makes no sense.

Just wondering, but do you realize that Orthodoxy is not determined by "communion with Constantinople" like Catholicism's insistence on communion with Rome? IOW, we are in communion with Constantinople because it is Orthodox; we are not Orthodox because we are in communion with Constantinople.

In reality the Church of Antioch IS the Melkite Greek Catholic Church.

You say Maronite and Syriac Catholic Churches are not legitimate Churches of Antioch.

Quote

The Antiochan orthodox church is much like the orthodox church in Rome. Its just a group of faithful but not the official church of the city which in this is example is the Catholic Church of Rome, not its orthodox counterpart

I really doubt any of those 5 or so Churches that claim to be Church of Antioch are present in Antakya. BTW the Orthodox Church of Antioch is bigger than the Melkite Church.

BTW2 why do you keep spreading your propaganda since you must have already noticed you won't convince anyone?

I think the Maronite, the Melkite and the Syriac Catholic Churches recognise each other and consider each other to be valid churches.

Just wondering, but do you realize that Orthodoxy is not determined by "communion with Constantinople" like Catholicism's insistence on communion with Rome? IOW, we are in communion with Constantinople because it is Orthodox; we are not Orthodox because we are in communion with Constantinople.

Yup

Logged

I do not post here anymore until the end of the year. God bless.

During the Iconoclastic Crisis, Stephen the Faster challenged the assembled Bishops at Hiereia:

"How can you call a council ecumenical when the bishop of Rome has not given his consent, and the canons forbid ecclesiastical affairs to be decided without the pope of Rome?"-Stephen the Faster

"The relationship between Antioch and Rome was heightened from the seventeenth century onward. In 1625 Latin missionaries entered the Middle East. They came in under the patronage of the French consulates. Eftimios Al Saifi, the Melkite Archbishop of Tyre and Sidon from 1682 to 1723, and his followers favored unity with Rome. Al Saifi, with the help of his followers and the Latin missionaries managed to form a Melkite community. They followed the rule of St Basil who founded eastern monasticism and established the Monastery of the Holy Saviour, which housed many Basilian Salvitorian monks- the largest Melkite community at the time. Other Melkite monks who also favored union with Rome established the Monastery of St John the Baptist. In the eighteenth century, the Melkites were divided. In 1724, The Patriarch of Antioch, Athanasius III, had passed away. He recommended that his former deacon, a 28 year-old Greek monk named Sylvester, succeed him. Some of the clergy and people of Antioch were not pleased with recommendation and elected Al Saifi's nephew, Seraphim Tanas, a Patriarch Kirilos VI.However, the Turks upheld the decision of the Greek Patriarch of Constantinople for Sylvester to be the new Patriarch of Antioch. Kirilos VI, however a Melkite Catholic who studied in Rome, maintained ties with the pope in Rome." http://www.melkite.org.au/images/users/2/Melkite%20WorldWide/History%20of%20the%20Melkite%20Catholic%20Church%20and%20its%20Rites.pdf

Seraphim Tanas was born in Damascus in 1680 and he was the nephew of Euthymios Saifi, bishop of Sidon. On August 3, 1701 he arrived in Marseille, France and from 1702 to 1710 he studied in the College of the Propaganda in Rome. Returned in Syria he was ordained priest by his uncle and he was distinguished for his sermons. He was appointed "Preacher of the Patriarchate of Antioch" by Patriarch Cyril V Zaim.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyril_VI_Tanas

However, during the Crusades the Crusaders introduced Latin prelates into the apostolic sees of the East, and the Fourth Crusade saw the sack of the great city of Constantinople and its domination by the Crusaders for fifty-seven years. These developments brought the East-West quarrel home to everyone but there was no declaration of schism. Since there had never been any formal division from East-West Schism these 'converts' of the Latin missionaries simply became a pro-Western, pro-Catholic party within Eastern Orthodoxy. Throughout the 17th century Jesuits, Capuchins and Carmelites established missions with the consent of the local Orthodox bishops in the Ottoman Empire. The Dominicans had been in Iraq since the 14th century.

From 1342, Roman Catholic friars opened missions in the Eastern Mediterranean, particularly in Damascus and their teaching had important influence over the Melkite clergy and people. Yet, in the Melkite tradition it was the Jesuits, founded only in 1534, who were really decisive in the formation of the Catholic party in the Orthodox Patriarchate of Antioch. The Jesuits were not friars but something like the highly educated priests of the Patriarchal Chancery, which made them more acceptable.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melkite_Greek_Catholic_Church

If there can be three legitimate claimants to a single See in Catholicism, could there be more than one legitimate claimant to the Roman See? If not, why can there be multiple legitimate claimants elsewhere and not Rome?

Picking which side of a schism is the legitimate continuation of the earlier unity is rarely a useful exercise.

From the Orthodox perspective, the fact that the vast majority of the laity and a majority of the Holy Synod remained Orthodox is enough.

Patriarchal elections in the Patriarchate of Antioch in the early Ottoman period were a mess. Patriarchs were generally elected by local lay acclamation and finalized through fundraising bribes for Ottoman approval. In the 16th and 17th century there were a number of schisms because of this, the most famous of them being the one in the 1580's between Michael al-Hamawi and Youakim Daw'. When these things would happen, Rome and the French would usually try to exacerbate things and win one side over, but it only really stuck in 1724.

At any rate, when the Orthodox Patriarch Anthanasios III (Debbas) died in 1723, Seraphim Tanas was duly elected Patriarch according to custom by the clergy and laity of Damascus and consecrated with the name Cyril VI.

According to the custom the patriarch was duly elected by a Synod of the clergy and laity of the Patriarchate, then consecrated by three bishops of the Synod, and then obtain the berat of the Patriarchate.

"Pat." Cyril never obtained a berat (nor did many of his successors). Patriarchate Sylvester had his a week after the alleged patriarchal consecration of Cyril. That pretty much settles the matter.

The Robber council had only two bishops (I won't go into the problems with their ecclesiastical bans, connected with the deposition and exile of Seraphim (i.e. "Cyril") Tanas' uncle, the bishop of Sidon), and had to ordain a third, in the rush to ordain Cyril as "patriarch" within a week-Sylvester had already been duly elected Patriarch according to custom by the clergy and laity on the recommendation of the dying Patriarch Athanasius III the month before, and had been sent for to come take over. The delegation from Antioch was waiting in Constantinople for his arrival from Mt. Athos, so time was running out for mechinations in Damascus. Problem is, the canons require three bishops for a consecration, and bar a consecration while the Patriarchal throne is vacant.

Then there is that problem of the excommunication and ecclesiastical bans imposed on those who were engaging in proselytizing for the Vatican, reiterated the previous year...

He sent his profession of faith to the Pope and considered himself a Catholic but not a Latin.

And yet he was consecrated in Latin rites, the subject of "Demandatam coelitus humilitati nostrae."

Your supreme pontiff didn't accept his profession of faith. By the time you had a supreme pontiff accepted it, and issued "Demandatum," Patriarch Sylvester had reigned over Antioch for nearly two decades, berat in hand.

Canon 5 of your Lateran IV:

Quote

Renewing the ancient privileges of the patriarchal sees, we decree with the approval of the holy and ecumenical council, that after the Roman Church, which by the will of God holds over all others pre-eminence of ordinary power as the mother and mistress of all the faithful, that of Constantinople shall hold first place, that of Alexandria second, that of Antioch third, and that of Jerusalem fourth, the dignity proper to each to be observed; so that after their bishops have received from the Roman pontiff the pallium, which is the distinguishing mark of the plenitude of the pontifical office, and have taken the oath of fidelity and obedience to him, they may also lawfully bestow the pallium upon their suffragans, receiving from them the canonical profession of faith for themselves, and for the Roman Church the pledge of obedience...

"Patriarch" Cyril had neither berat nor pallium those twenty years. Patriarch Sylvester, was patriarch in the full sense of the word that entire time.

No, the Vatican line of Byzantine Patriarchs of Antioch, heirs (although they won't claim it) of Paulinus and Evagrius. The Catholic line of Roman Patriarchs of Antioch, heirs of Patriarch St. Meletius, continued in Patriarch Sylvester. It continues in Patriarch John X. Many Years!

His consecration and enthronement came as a serious shock to the rest of Orthodoxy. Rightfully so, (from the Orthodox perspective) Patriarch Jeremias of Constantinople excommunicated Cyril and his consecrators, and ordained Deacon Sylvestor of Cyprus -- a nephew of the deceased Patriarch -- and dispatched him to Damascus, armed with the necessary "firmans, and charged him with the mission of reclaiming the errant and punishing the new "schismatic's."

The Patriarch of Constantinople unilaterally excommunicated the duly elected Patriarch and established a new Patriarch in his stead

no, he consecrated with the delegation from Antioch their duly elected Patriarch. And presided over the general synod that excommunicated those who dared to attempt to usurp the throne of Antioch from its duly elected Patriarch.

Even the Latins in Aleppo refused to recognize the usurpers, nor their supreme pontiff back in Old Rome.

Yes, His Grace Bishop Siluan does look like him more than the pope emeritus (is that what he is called now?), just with a beard.

« Last Edit: June 22, 2013, 03:30:50 PM by ialmisry »

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

The Patriarch OF Antioch has been IN Damascus for some time, so Bp. Siluan is in good company.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

The reason why I refer to the Melkites is because they are the only Antiochan communion that was in communion with Constantinople. Their patriarch and bishops chose become catholic and thus Antioch is not in communion with Constantinople but with Rome...

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

In reality the Church of Antioch IS the Melkite Greek Catholic Church.

You say Maronite and Syriac Catholic Churches are not legitimate Churches of Antioch.

Quote

The Antiochan orthodox church is much like the orthodox church in Rome. Its just a group of faithful but not the official church of the city which in this is example is the Catholic Church of Rome, not its orthodox counterpart

I really doubt any of those 5 or so Churches that claim to be Church of Antioch are present in Antakya. BTW the Orthodox Church of Antioch is bigger than the Melkite Church.

Not that size matters.

Only the Church of Antioch is in Antioch. I've been to the Cathedral myself.

BTW2 why do you keep spreading your propaganda since you must have already noticed you won't convince anyone?

the venerable tradition of the Vatican.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

You say Maronite and Syriac Catholic Churches are not legitimate Churches of Antioch.

No you extrapolated that. What you think I insinuate from saying or not saying something doesn't make it so

He's just applying your "logic." If it is just a matter of picking a side, and not who remained in the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, then you have to conclude that the Syriacs and the Maronites were on the wrong side if you are betting on the Melkites.

BTW why do you keep spreading your propaganda since you must have already noticed you won't convince anyone?

I'm here to get a question answered and have a meaningful discussion. Not to spread propaganda

« Last Edit: June 22, 2013, 03:49:18 PM by ialmisry »

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? Who can watch the watchmen?"No one is paying attention to your post reports"Why do posters that claim to have me blocked keep sending me pms and responding to my posts? That makes no sense.

If there can be three legitimate claimants to a single See in Catholicism, could there be more than one legitimate claimant to the Roman See? If not, why can there be multiple legitimate claimants elsewhere and not Rome?

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

If there can be three legitimate claimants to a single See in Catholicism, could there be more than one legitimate claimant to the Roman See? If not, why can there be multiple legitimate claimants elsewhere and not Rome?

Do they consider both popes to have been legitimate or just one and the other an antipope? Genuine question.

If there can be three legitimate claimants to a single See in Catholicism, could there be more than one legitimate claimant to the Roman See? If not, why can there be multiple legitimate claimants elsewhere and not Rome?

Do they consider both popes to have been legitimate or just one and the other an antipope? Genuine question.

They don't have a consistent answer-their supreme pontiff, for instance, hasn't given a list of his predecessors ex cathedra. Their Supreme Pontiff Alexander VI took that number, because of the claimant Pope Alexander V of the Pisan line, although their Pope John XXIII of Vatican II took that number in opposition to Pope John XXIII who succeeded Pope Alexander V.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

They don't have a consistent answer-their supreme pontiff, for instance, hasn't given a list of his predecessors ex cathedra. Their Supreme Pontiff Alexander VI took that number, because of the claimant Pope Alexander V of the Pisan line, although their Pope John XXIII of Vatican II took that number in opposition to Pope John XXIII who succeeded Pope Alexander V.

Antipope Alexander V (1409–1410) (Considered to be an Antipope; however, the next Pope Alexander took the name Alexander VI due to confusion over Alexander V's status at the time.)Pope Alexander VI (1492–1503)

Is this (correctly?) saying that Alexander V wasn't condemned yet as an antipope during Pope Alexander VI's reign despite it being nearly a century later?

They don't have a consistent answer-their supreme pontiff, for instance, hasn't given a list of his predecessors ex cathedra. Their Supreme Pontiff Alexander VI took that number, because of the claimant Pope Alexander V of the Pisan line, although their Pope John XXIII of Vatican II took that number in opposition to Pope John XXIII who succeeded Pope Alexander V.

Antipope Alexander V (1409–1410) (Considered to be an Antipope; however, the next Pope Alexander took the name Alexander VI due to confusion over Alexander V's status at the time.)Pope Alexander VI (1492–1503)

Is this (correctly?) saying that Alexander V wasn't condemned yet as an antipope during Pope Alexander VI's reign despite it being nearly a century later?

I don't think he was removed from the Annuaria Pontifica until the 20th century.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

At any rate, when the Orthodox Patriarch Anthanasios III (Debbas) died in 1723, Seraphim Tanas was duly elected Patriarch according to custom by the clergy and laity of Damascus and consecrated with the name Cyril VI. He sent his profession of faith to the Pope and considered himself a Catholic but not a Latin. Thus began the Catholic line of Byzantine Patriarchs of Antioch.His consecration and enthronement came as a serious shock to the rest of Orthodoxy. Rightfully so, (from the Orthodox perspective) Patriarch Jeremias of Constantinople excommunicated Cyril and his consecrators, and ordained Deacon Sylvestor of Cyprus -- a nephew of the deceased Patriarch -- and dispatched him to Damascus, armed with the necessary "firmans, and charged him with the mission of reclaiming the errant and punishing the new "schismatic's."

He was elected by the Synod AND the laity. The Patriarch of Constantinople unilaterally excommunicated the duly elected Patriarch and established a new Patriarch in his stead, and sent him to "reclaim and punish" the new "schismatics". The people and clergy spoke, and elected Cyril, but Constantinople didn't like it and intervened, excommunicating the rightful Patriarch and establishing a seperate line in Damascus.

Regardless of whether or not the time was right for Reunion, Constantinople acted on its own against the rightful Patriarch of Antioch, according to the Canons of the Church. The Melkite Synod and laity elected Patriarch Cyril, and Cyril never moved against Constantinople, but merely reunited with Rome. This action was met with excommunication and the creation of a new Patriarchate, against the Canons of the Church.

Oh and btw, the canonical Bishop of Rome looks more like Pope Francis

What is your point? And why are you trying to make it?

Logged

Quote from: GabrieltheCelt

If you spend long enough on this forum, you'll come away with all sorts of weird, untrue ideas of Orthodox Christianity.

Quote from: orthonorm

I would suggest most persons in general avoid any question beginning with why.

The reason why I refer to the Melkites is because they are the only Antiochan communion that was in communion with Constantinople. Their patriarch and bishops chose become catholic and thus Antioch is not in communion with Constantinople but with Rome...

You've repeated this lie three times. It must be true now. Way to go.

Logged

Quote from: GabrieltheCelt

If you spend long enough on this forum, you'll come away with all sorts of weird, untrue ideas of Orthodox Christianity.

Quote from: orthonorm

I would suggest most persons in general avoid any question beginning with why.